I don’t want “hope”, I want good policies, politics, and results. Obama demonstrates exactly how not to argue against Republican militarism. From Ezra Klein:

I’m sympathetic to what I think Obama was trying to say, but the point is better put more simply — to have the best shot at winning national security arguments with John McCain, the Democrats need a candidate who didn’t support the invasion of Iraq. After all, McCain won’t be tarred with the specific acts of “incompetence” that are frequently (and misleadingly) alleged to have been responsible for disaster in Iraq. The Democratic nominee is going to have to argue that there is a fundamental strategic difference in their approach and that of the Republican nominee.

One ideal way to illustrate the difference would be to point out that the Republican approach leads to huge disasters like Iraq, whereas the alternative doesn’t. Not anything so high-flying (and, frankly, puny-sounding) as a denunciation of “the politics of fear,” but something concrete like, “it seems to me that pulling troops out of Afghanistan so that Osama bin Laden could escape and the Taliban could regroup near the Pakistani border was probably a mistake. Nor was it a good idea to waste hundreds of billions of dollars on a war of choice that wound up speeding nuclear proliferation in North Korea and Iran. Unlike Sen. McCain, I didn’t support those moves.”

The smart thing about this response is that this response calls Republican policies (and whoever the candidate is) stupid without appearing to have done so. The talk show host babble, while soothing to some, doesn’t delegitimize the Republican policies, which is what the Democratic candidate is going to have to do.

Update: Regarding the post title, I was referring to a nursery rhyme, for love of the Intelligent Designer. The first comment is as stupid as the whole ‘jigger controversy.’ But thanks for the site hits. Here’s the rhyme:

Comments

I think I see an underlying thought in some of your posts, and I’d like to address it. The last 8 years have been awful and a result of bitter Republican partisan politics. Many Democrats have become hardened and think the response should be bitter Democratic partisan politics. This is the rhetoric coming from both Clinton and Edwards… we need to fight. IMO, going down that road is the fastest way to lose majorities in the House and Senate by drawing (or maintaining) a hard line and keeping the populus divided. A significantly better long-term Democratic strategy is to gain support of the middle of the country, and thus pull the entire country toward the political left. That is the rhetoric from the Obama campaign and one that will lead to an expansion of majorities in both the House and Senate come 2010 + 2012 and keep the country moving in a progressive direction. Right now the Democrats have the sympathy of the political center, a fighter will burn through that sympathy faster.

It’s certainly accurate to say that the Democrats need to differentiate themselves foreign policy wise from the Republicans, and that includes hammering them on the results of their actions over the last 7 years. That being said, they also need to offer a more concrete alternative for the future. So far, I’ve heard little in that regard.

It’s certainly accurate to say that the Democrats need to differentiate themselves foreign policy wise from the Republicans, and that includes hammering them on the results of their actions over the last 7 years. That being said, they also need to offer a more concrete alternative for the future. So far, I’ve heard little in that regard

It’s certainly accurate to say that the Democrats need to differentiate themselves foreign policy wise from the Republicans, and that includes hammering them on the results of their actions over the last 7 years. That being said, they also need to offer a more concrete alternative for the future. So far, I’ve heard little in that regard

The site is currently under maintenance. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.